I think it is because AMD had terrible drivers at launch not that Nvidia is nerfing performance now. Pitcairn and Tahiti always had relatively good hardware but the drivers couldn't utilize it effectively. Also some newer games are using more compute which AMD's GCN is pretty good at.

GCN has aged well compared to Kepler (especially GK104) but this is due to changing graphics workloads and improving drivers on AMD's part, not nefarious nerfing by Nvidia.

I am aware, but as far as judging relative CPU performance, it doesn't matter. I'm not judging their ability or any personal aspects, but 2015 results with almost entirely 2013 or older only CPUs isn't the most informative regardless of reason. Simply put, it's self-evident that missing a tick-tock cycle and the most popular enthusiast CPUs of 2015 doesn't make for a comprehensive result.

While it is not ideal, it is still the most comprehensive test currently offered by any reviewing site. As far as I'm aware, there is no other benchmarking reviewing site, that takes every single review of a game that they did previously, that came out in 2015 and then averages overall performance for both GPUs and CPUs.

If you know of another website that does this, I would gladly include their results in the OP. However, I believe only GameGPU.ru takes the time to revisit these older reviews and average the overall performance for these numerous Triple A titles released the previous year. Surely, it would be much more comprehensive to have more variety in their CPU tests, but their GPU tests aren't all that bad (even though having more cards would only improve the results, as would having more CPUs). However, again, I believe this is the only website that does this and hopefully it might inspire other websites to do the same at the beginning of each new year.Edited by BiG StroOnZ - 1/24/16 at 10:41pm

VRAM can't explain why an R7 370 (Pitcairn Pro) equals a GTX 760 and an R9 270X (Pitcairn XT) is quickly closing in on a GTX 770.
Charts(Click to show)

GTX 760 review:

Now:

Then:

760 was 1.5x the 7850
770 was 1.5x the 7870
780 was 1.21x the 7970 GHz

Now:

760 is 1x the R7 370
770 is 1.07x the R9 270X
780 is 1.13x the 280X

Relatively GK110 hasn't suffered much (although 290X is equaling or exceeding the 780 Ti at 1080p), but GK104 is getting ravaged by Pitcairn and Tahiti.

I love this quote

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkenietz

It battled the 6 series, it came back and battled the 7 series, now it's returned again after a year in the shadows to wage war with the 9 series! Pitcairn the gladiator!
That could be one of the aib special editions.

VRAM can't explain why an R7 370 (Pitcairn Pro) equals a GTX 760 and an R9 270X (Pitcairn XT) is quickly closing in on a GTX 770.
Charts(Click to show)

GTX 760 review:

Now:

Then:

760 was 1.5x the 7850
770 was 1.5x the 7870
780 was 1.21x the 7970 GHz

Now:

760 is 1x the R7 370
770 is 1.07x the R9 270X
780 is 1.13x the 280X

Relatively GK110 hasn't suffered much (although 290X is equaling or exceeding the 780 Ti at 1080p), but GK104 is getting ravaged by Pitcairn and Tahiti.

I'd say quite a bit of it could be explained away by the much lower CPU overhead incurred under WDDM 2.0 in Win10 vs WDDM 1.1 in Win7.

Regardless, that does bring up an important point which Asmodian had already alluded to, which is the terrible launch drivers. Now imagine what the competitive landscape would've looked like had AMD got all their stuff in order on launch day.

VRAM can't explain why an R7 370 (Pitcairn Pro) equals a GTX 760 and an R9 270X (Pitcairn XT) is quickly closing in on a GTX 770.
Charts(Click to show)

GTX 760 review:.

First of all, there is a 10% difference between r9 370 and gtx760, they are not equal, just like 7850 and r9 370 are not equal.
760 was 40% faster than 7850, now that is down to 30%. Let's not skew numbers to fit our story. Lack of VRAM will hit faster GPU more, it is quite obvious. And as somebody already mentioned AMD as usual needs more time to write a decent drivers and get most out of their cards. But hey, gimping is teh word

VRAM can't explain why an R7 370 (Pitcairn Pro) equals a GTX 760 and an R9 270X (Pitcairn XT) is quickly closing in on a GTX 770.
Charts(Click to show)

GTX 760 review:

Now:

Then:

760 was 1.5x the 7850
770 was 1.5x the 7870
780 was 1.21x the 7970 GHz

Now:

760 is 1x the R7 370
770 is 1.07x the R9 270X
780 is 1.13x the 280X

I'm pretty sure the biggest differences are that TPU has drastically changed the games they used since GTX 760 as well as the card suite. That will definitely change the average relative performance of each card.

since the 760 are present on both graphs, and both HD7970 and R9-280X have the same die, theres nothing wrong in comparing it indirectly.
and even if the games were switched to newer games, that just means Nvidia 700 series aren't getting any driver optimizations for the newer games.

Indirect comparisons never work. I've seen a good amount of threads turn into pointless arguments because of people throwing up five benchmarks that shows one card performing a certain way, and someone else throwing up another 3 to prove that it doesn't, and that it actually performs worse. Then, they get into how one review website is biased, or they're using different drivers, or the 290X is throttling so the results aren't representative of the card's potential, or they use a different testing rig, or you can't compare the same games because they can test in different areas, or they don't show frametimes so that review is pointless, etc. It just doesn't work